Chaucer and the Parables (part 3)

The Friar

This post continues the story of The Summoner’s Tale from the previous one.

After kissing Thomas’s wife, the friar cites the Rich Man and Lazarus parable deceitfully to portray his life as one of poverty, abstinence, and fasting:

For, sir and dame, trust me full well in all,

Our orisons are more effectual,

And more we see of Christ’s own secret things

Than folk of the laity, though they were kings.

We live in poverty and abstinence

And laymen live in riches and expense

Of meat and drink, and in their gross delight.

This world’s desires we hold in great despite.

Dives and Lazarus lived differently,

And different recompense they had thereby.

Whoso would pray, he must fast and be clean,

Fatten his soul and keep his body lean.

We fare as says the apostle; clothes and food

Suffice us, though they be not over-good.

The cleanness and the fasting of us friars

Result in Christ's accepting all our prayers.

The friar compounds his lies by further comparing himself with Lazarus and contrasting himself with the rich man:

Therefore we mendicants, we simple friars,

Are sworn to poverty and continence,

To charity, meekness, and abstinence,

To persecution for our righteousness,

To weeping, pity, and to cleanliness.

And therefore may you see that all our prayers-

I speak of us, we mendicants, we friars-

Are to the High God far more acceptable

Than yours, with all the feasts you make at table.

The friar then assures Thomas that he and the other friars pray for him day and night and that Thomas’s monetary support will make a difference, but Thomas replies that he had already contributed much of his wealth to the friars to no avail. Friar John responds that has not given too much but too little and demands that Thomas should give more to support the twelve friars.

Thomas reacts angrily to the friar’s gross hypocrisy. He declares that he will give Friar John a gift into his hand on the condition that he divide it equally among the twelve friars. Friar John readily agrees, and the sick man then says:

"Lo, hear my oath! In me shall truth not lack."

"Now then, come put your hand right down my back,"

Replied this man, "and grope you well behind;

For underneath my buttocks shall you find

A thing that I have hid in privity."

"Ah," thought the friar, "this shall go with me!"

And down he thrust his hand right to the cleft,

In hope that he should find there some good gift.

And when the sick man felt the friar here

Groping about his hole and all his rear,

Into his hand he let the friar a fart.

There is no stallion drawing loaded cart

That might have let a fart of such a sound.

This tale illustrates Chaucer’s interesting dialectic between the sacred and the profane (e.g., Friar John moves from deliberating how to split a “farthing” among twelve friars; now he has to figure out how to split a “farting” twelve ways), and it involves aspects of his biblical interpretation as well. Some of Chaucer’s characters unknowingly misinterpret biblical passages (e.g., January, in The Merchant’s Tale), but others intentionally misapply biblical passages, both clerics (e.g., Friar John) and laity (e.g., the wife of Bath). In fact, Friar John famously informs Thomas that he prefers the “gloss” to the Bible itself:

I have today been to your church, at Mass,

And preached a sermon after my poor wit,

Not wholly from the text of holy writ,

For that is hard and baffling in the main;

And therefore all its meaning I'll explain.

Glosing's a glorious thing, and that's certain,

For letters kill, as scholars say with pain.

In reality, for the hypocritical friar, to gloss on such passages as the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus makes it easier for him to manipulate the text in order to satisfy his pursuit of earthly gain while pretending to speak of spiritual values. 

Chaucer and the Parables (part 2)

Geoffrey Chaucer

The Canterbury Tales uses parables in both positive and negative ways. The Summoner’s Tale, for example, includes the Rich Man and Lazarus parable in a morally dubious way. This story is told in response to the previous story, The Friar’s Tale, in which a friar relates a story against a summoner, a minor church official whose duties included notifying people who had to appear before a church (not civil) court. In The Friar’s Tale, the summoner is corrupt. He colludes with a bailiff—who is actually the devil in disguise—to extort money from people. At the end of the story, the devil takes the summoner to hell, after the summoner tries to extort a bribe from a poor widow.

The Summoner’s Tale then responds with the story of a hypocritical friar’s attempt to extort money from a bedridden peasant. The prologue to the tale gives the narrator’s opinion of such friars, including a humorous and ribald statement of where such friars make their home. When an angel commands Satan to hold up his tail:

“Hold up thy tail, thou Sathanas!” said he,

“Show forth thine arse and let the friar see

Where is the nest of friars in this place!”

And ere one might go half a furlong's space,

Just as the bees come swarming from a hive,

Out of the Devil's arse-hole there did drive

Full twenty thousand friars in a rout,

And through all Hell they swarmed and ran about.

And came again, as fast as they could run,

And in his arse they crept back, every one.

In the tale itself, the friar, named John, misuses not only his office and misinterprets the Bible for his own gain but also the Bible; he is more concerned about money than with saving souls. He preaches against those who waste and devour wealth while he goes from house to house begging for food and other goods—while he has elegant possessions—and pretends that he will pray for those who contribute. He comes to the house of a rich man named Thomas who was sick and bedridden. He lies to Thomas about praying for him, wheedles some additional food from Thomas’s wife, flirts shamelessly with her, and embraces her: “within his two arms narrow, And kissed her sweetly, chirping like a sparrow With his two lips.”

The next post will discuss the friar’s hypocritical use of the Rich Man and Lazarus parable.

Geoffrey Chaucer and the Parables

Geoffrey Chaucer (ca. 1340/3–1400)

As noted in a previous post, I had initially written sections on both John Gower and Geoffrey Chaucer. I then initially deleted the Gower section but upon rereading what I had written about both of them, I decided that Gower's contribution was more important to highlight in the book. So I will include what I wrote about Chaucer in the next few posts, none of which will appear in the book.

Many other important interpretations of the parables could be found in English literature during this period, such as Handlyng Synne (214.6635-6720), The Pricke of Conscience (84.3062-66) or William Langland’s Piers Plowman (B.16.252-71), all of which interpret the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Piers Plowman also discusses the parables of the Wise and Foolish Virgins (B.1.183-87), the Unjust Steward (B.6.229-30), and the Talents (B.6.240-48; see Wailes 1986: 41-42). The most famous work during this time period, however, is Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, one of the greatest masterpieces in English literature. Chaucer was the most important English poet before Shakespeare, but his career also included roles as a diplomat and civil servant under three British kings.

Chaucer was born into a prominent family in London—his father and grandfather were successful wine merchants—that was also involved in government service. The first definite record of his life comes from 1357, where he is listed as a page (under the name of “Galfrido Chaucer”) in the household expense accounts of Elizabeth, the Countess of Ulster and wife of Lionel, one of the sons of King Edward III. Chaucer then served as a yeoman (a “valettus”) to Lionel in a military expedition to France, where Chaucer was captured during an unsuccessful siege of Reims (the king ransomed him for £16). This expedition was the first of many journeys that Chaucer would undertake to Europe on diplomatic missions. Chaucer also served in many other public roles (for details see Brown 2011: xii-3). Upon his death, Chaucer was only the second non-royal to be buried within Westminster Abbey, in a section that would soon be named the “Poet’s Corner.”

The Canterbury Tales is the most popular of Chaucer’s writings. Chaucer most likely began writing the Canterbury Tales around 1387, and the work remained unfinished at his death thirteen years later. Only 24 tales (some incomplete; e.g., the tales of the Cook and the Squire) of an estimated 120 tales that Chaucer planned to write are found collectively in various manuscripts (Hirsh 2003: 43; Chaucer 2008: xx). At first glance, the work appears to be merely a collection of fictional short stories of various pilgrims who make their way along the fifty-four miles from Southwark Cathedral in London to Canterbury to worship at the shrine of Saint Thomas. These brilliant tales, however, integrate the sacred and the profane, spiritual insights and earthy humor, truth and deception, and numerous literary genres in poetic form, and they display a philosophical and psychological depth that creates an unforgettable band of travelers (see Lerer 2006: 243-4).

Godspell and the Parables (finale): The Prodigal Son

Godspell's Prodigal Son play: Merrell, Jerry, and Jeffrey

As noted in the last post, the action group moves to Cherry Lane Theater, the off-Broadway location where the play became a success. This theater is the setting for the narration and acting out of the parable of the Prodigal Son.

Jesus plays the piano, and the enactment of the Prodigal Son vaudeville-like parable/play incorporates the mode of silent films in theaters, and it also includes clips of silent films to illustrate various scenes of the parable.

Jesus begins the narration, in comic voice, and others in the group, often in comic voices, take turns narrating the story: Lynne, Joanne, Robin, and Katie. Merrell plays the role of the younger son, Jeffrey the older son, Jerry the father, and Judas the servant who informs the older son of the party for the returning younger son. Various scenes from silent films are interspersed throughout the narration and enactment of the parable; these clips are often humorous (e.g., when the prodigal returns home, the film clip shows a man riding a camel down a flight of steps and then a man apparently running on top of water) and include famous actors from the silent era, such as Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplain. These clips are shown after almost every key line, and sometimes the characters act out the parable in concert with scenes from these silent films.

Unlike the parable, but similar to other interpretations of the parable over the centuries, the reception in Godspell provides a completely happy ending to this parable. Initially, the older brother refuses to come inside the house and join the celebration of his brother’s return. The father, however—Jerry, who is dressed in a huge cowboy hat and speaks with an exaggerated “Western” accent—walks across the stage to speak with his older son: 

Jerry: My boy . . . You have always been with me, and everything I have is yours.  Now could we help but celebrate on this happy day, for your brother here was dead and has come back to life—metaphorically speaking. Was lost and he’s found.

As he is speaking, Jerry brings Jeffrey across the stage to meet Merrell. The boys initially refuse even to look at each other and turn away. Jerry then looks at Jesus, who nods at him. Jerry then comically knocks the boys’ heads together; they fall to their knees and then hug, as their father says, “Them’s my boys.” The scene ends with the whole group cheering and applauding enthusiastically the complete restoration of community within the family.

Once again, all are restored to fellowship.

The film immediately relocates the cast on a pier, where the group boards a boat and sings, “You are the light of the World,” and where they encourage each other to be the light of the world, the salt of the earth, and be the “City of God.” The goal, as we have seen over and over gain, is kindness:

So let your light so shine before men

Let your light so shine

So that the might know kindness again

. . .

You gotta live right to be the light of the world (score 86-90).

It is only after this scene, more than an hour into the film, that Jesus encounters opposition (in the form of large robot who represents the Pharisees and the doctors of the law, but which is manned by his disciples). Jesus says, “This is the beginning,” and the “Passion narrative” in Godspell begins. It consists of less than thirty minutes of the film.

Godspell is distinctive among Jesus films because it eschews miracles—there is only one represented, and it is presented not as a real miracle (one disciples puts a small branch into an empty pot and watches as Jesus waters it; when she is not looking, another disciple replaces the small branch with a larger one, and the first disciple mistakes it for a miracle of growth).

The film also is distinctive because it incorporates the parables so deeply into the narrative of Jesus’s life and teachings. Jesus is the proclaimer and bringer of the kingdom of God, which is found within the community formed around him. This community, however, grows and develops outside of any interactions with other people, except for the robot that symbolizes the opposition to Jesus and the police cars that drive up near the end of the film right before Jesus’s death. And at the end, the community apparently vanishes as New York City comes back to life at the end of the film with crowds once again filling the streets, leaving the question of the harvest in the parable of the Sower unanswered.  

Many argue that Godspell domesticates both the message of Jesus and Jesus’s life (such domestication is often found in interpreters of Jesus and his parables over the centuries). Others ask, however, whether Godspell also ultimately domesticates the counterculture in the United States in the 1960s (see Walsh 2003: 74).